|
IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (9/4/2004 2:04:02 AM)
|
For the record, I wrote my piece whilst Keke's, Kev's and a19999577's pieces were being posted. I never saw their words before I hit OK on this. I in no way intend to suggest they are part of, or at fault for, this "banality". That is my fault, and the fault of one other (in my opinion, anyway, he's not going to admit it.)
My apologies if any of the above thought the words below were a criticism of their latest posts in any way. It was not intended.
Regards,
IronDuke
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
to Anyone still reading this banality (for which I fully accept half the blame)
Before we upset the Moderator again, (who has far better things to do than watch all this) I think it is time to bring a halt to this. I wanted to explain why. I will no longer reply to Von Rom (joining several others) and will use four brief points from this argument to illustrate why. This stands as my last word for those who want to understand why, so they don't have to accept any other reason that is put forward for it on my behalf.
Point One: fairness
Von Rom said:
quote:
von Rom
He (Kev) questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.
quote:
Von Rom
From 20 to 25 September, the Fifth Panzer Army directed the 111th Panzer Brigade and the 11th Panzer Division into a series of attacks against the Arracourt position. Each assault followed the pattern set on 19 September. The Panzers attacked under the cover of morning fog, only to be thwarted by CCA's mobile defense and driven off by armored counterattacks of company or battalion strength. The defensive actions fought around Arracourt stalled the German offensive. The 4th Armored Division claimed 281 German tanks destroyed, 3,000 Germans killed, and another 3,000 taken prisoner in the fighting.
quote:
Von Rom
There were a series of battles between Third Army and German forces between Sept 18-19 to Sept 28-30, 1944 that resulted in some of the biggest armoured battles on the western front.
quote:
Von Rom
More than 60 years later, the number of German armoured vehicles destroyed by Third Army's 4th Armoured Division in Lorraine has never been disputed.
At the end of the week-long battle, Combat Command A reported 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers lost but claimed 285 German tanks destroyed.
Von Rom set the terms of this argument. It was about the battle of Arracourt 18-30 Sept. I gave a very detailed analysis of tank strengths at Arracourt, and then it was all dismissed because in the next post.
quote:
Von Rom
Therefore, because your study has not been conducted thoroughly to include all German fighting units in Lorraine at the time, you research is FATALLY FLAWED and cannot stand.
and
quote:
Von Rom
because you have omitted from your study TWO FULL WEEKS of fighting
The argument has changed from 12 days at Arracourt to one about a month in Lorraine (see later in VR's post as well where tanks are counted if 4th Armoured met them between 4th Sept and 30th Sept). However, rather than say this, and let us debate this new topic, Von rom has used this unilateral change of argument to dismiss everything I've said. That isn't fair, and I won't argue against that sort of tactic. For Von Rom to say we're arguing about 18-30 Sept, and then say I am missing things out because I haven't mentioned stuff that happened before this is unfair. It isn't debate.
Secondly, logic.
quote:
Sorry to tell you but when tanks have NOT been destroyed, and if they are in the repair shops, those tanks remain a potential force in being.
Most histories I have read INCLUDE tanks that are in the repair shops. Read any good history of the Afrika Korps or in Normandy to find out how important it was to have good mechanics and to get tanks back into action quickly.
Dietrich personally awarded the Iron Cross to his mechanics because they continually worked miracles returning damaged tanks back to the battlefield.
Tanks in repair shops are NEVER excluded in totals of tanks available. All OOBs list ALL tanks that have not been destroyed, even those in the repair shops
We were arguing about the number of tanks 4th Armoured destroyed. I didn't count these repair shop vehicles because 4th Armoured couldn't destroy tanks that were not in action. If 4th Armoured couldn't see these tanks, how could they shoot them? That this argument in the quote above should be used indicates (and the problem may be mine, I'm happy to concede) that my thought processes and Von Rom's are too different to be able to debate each other. All we can do is upset the moderator.
Point three - something the moderator wouldn't let me describe
quote:
Von Rom
When you initially started your project, I pointed out to you that you didn't include EIGHT German fighting formations in your research. If I had not mentioned them to you, you would not have included them at all.
I addressed these eight formations twice in between the period Von Rom mentioned them the first time, and the time he posted this. I showed how they either didn't exist at the time of Arracourt, didn't fight at Arracourt, or had no tanks (all of which make them irrelevant to a discussion of German tank strength at Arracourt between 18-30th September).
To therefore make this comment, as if I had done something wrong, and was deliberately missing them out, having read my explanation is unfair. There are other words for it, but either the forum wouldn't let me post it, or the moderator would give me two weeks holiday if I used them.
Fourth: Research
quote:
17th SS PzGdr Div - this is listed in Kursitis (The Wehrmacht at War 1939-1945, p.264), but is not listed in Nafziger.
Using the GrossDeutchland PzGdr div as an example, then the 17th SS could have had up to 130 Armoured vehicles.
This is the worst one. This research is amongst the poorest I have seen, for reasons I will describe shortly. However, there may be times when I do not have the sources to check something Von Rom says. Rather than lose an argument because I can't check something, I'd rather not argue at all with him, because the standard of this research gives me no confidence I can take his research at face value without cross checking. I am particularly sorry about this one, because the forum is all about swapping opinions and research, but the context of this research was that my figures were being questioned and dismissed because of the alleged facts above. If I hadn't been been able to prove otherwise, they might have been accepted by other forum readers.
quote:
17th SS PzGdr Div - this is listed in Kursitis (The Wehrmacht at War 1939-1945, p.264), but is not listed in Nafziger.
Von Rom has recently started quoting from Nafziger, I would venture he consulted it in the last 24 hours after I used it several times in my piece.
Nafziger does list the 17th SS. However, he does it in a different volume to the one I'm guessing Von Rom read. I'm guessing he consulted "Panzers and Artillery in World War II" as he seems to quote Nafziger in connection with Panzergrenadier formations. The 17th SS are featured in "Waffen SS and other units in World War II". Now, I don't mind
someone not realising this. There are a lot of sources out there. In this instance, though, the comment was made after I had said
quote:
Again, not a single source mentions it in the Arracourt accounts. The combined arms Library suggests on 10th it was fighting the 5th US Division.
Niklas Zetterling: "Normandy 1944" tells us this unit had ten Stugs in a strength return dated 23 July, and that further losses were sustained during the Cobra fighting at Coutances (pg 367). He reports it was built back up with the addition of 49th and 51st SS Panzergrenadier Brigades.
Nafziger: "The German order of Battle: Waffen SS and other units in WWII" tells us these formations were infantry formations and contained no tanks or assault guns. (Pg 134-135).
Again, I'm not too concerned that Von Rom never looked at the SS volume, but I clearly had, and anyone who does will see that the 17th SS had 34 Stugs in June, and never had an authorised strength above that sort of level. What troubles me is what happened in the absence of direct evidence. (or what happened when my evidence was ignored).
quote:
Von Rom
Using the GrossDeutchland PzGdr div as an example, then the 17th SS could have had up to 130 Armoured vehicles.
and
quote:
Clearly, between Sept 4-5 to Sept 27th, the 4th Armoured Divison encountered the following German units:
11th Pz Div - 176 AFVs (optimal)
111 Pz Brigade - 100 AFVs (optimal)
113th Pz Brigade - 100 AFVs (optimal)
15th PzGdr Div - 37 AFVs
3rd PzGdr Div - 37 AFVs
17th SS PzGdr Div - 130 AFVs (optimal)
2nd Pz Div - 130 Tanks and StuGs (optimal)
This total equals 710 AFVs.
The 17th SS was compared to another formation (GD), and with no direct evidence of it's actual strength, all 130 vehicles were counted.
The GrossDeustchland was a pretty unique unit. It's authorised strength at most times during the war was higher than any comparable German unit because of it's unique and elite status (it was the equivalent of the British Guards, say). It usually had a full Panzer Regiment, when other Pzgr formations would often just have carried a battalion of tanks on strength. At times the GD Panzer regiment also carried 3 Btns, which was pretty unique for the mid war German Army which was settling on a two battalion Regimental structure because of lack of tanks.
Now, to compare the 17th SS to the GrossDeustchland is difficult to justify as it is. What disturbed me, is that in the book I know Von Rom did have, there are the best part of 20 Panzergrenadier formations listed. These (with the odd exception such as GD and the Brandenburg PZGR Divison) all have the standard structure. However, 17th SS has been compared to the "example" of GD, rather than the mass of divisons listed which carry much smaller strengths. I know Von Rom knows these strengths because he quotes 3rd and 15th PGD tank strengths (correctly) as in the mid thirties (about standard).
In other words, trying to prove there were lots of tanks in Lorraine, and unable to show 17th SS had any, he compares it to the largest PGD he can find (without warning us it's strengths are higher than any other he has seen) and then lists that figure. He then takes this risky (and flawed) conjecture and quotes it in a further argument without qualification:
quote:
Von Rom
17th SS PzGdr Div - 130 AFVs (optimal)
To have my arguments roundly dismissed on the basis of research like this is unfair, and disturbing. Forum readers who do not know about 17th SS or the GrossDeutschland could have taken this seriously if I had said nothing. For the record, I repeat, 17th SS had an authorised (or optimal if you prefer [;)]) tank strength around 100 less than the GrossDeutschland. (130 doesn't actually do some GD OOBs justice, as it misses out some self propelled Tank destroyers and assault guns (which we've been counting thus far), the real figure was sometimes as high as 170).
Taken with the other reasons above, it's time to bring my and Von Rom's "debate" to an end. I fully accept half the responsibility for the banality that this thread has become. I apologise to anyone (particularly Kev "no patton" Nugly) whose thread I've helped ruin.
Regards,
IronDuke
|
|
|
|
